New houses are taxed, used houses are not. Services such as someone charging you to find a house for you is taxed. All new goods and services that are sold to a non biz individual is taxed, unless they are classified as investment (such as tuition). If a used house price is listed at $100,000, you will pay the seller $100,000, and the seller keeps $100,000. If it is a NEW house, the seller would send $23,000 to the govt. Since the seller does not have to do complex taxes, they can pass the savings of not having to spend days on taxes and hire accountants or pay investment or payroll taxes, to you. Since the house builder no longer has to deal with taxes (no tax on biz purchases) the builder can pass those savings to you. Same with the guy who made the drywall, the guy who sawed down trees, etc. All of the savings seen by eliminating the income tax is passed down through competition.

Now to the prebate. Everyone gets it. If you are a us citizen, you get it. To get it all you need to do is prove you are a citizen. The govt then writes a check (about $250) to you at the beginning of every month. This is not complicated. They already send out millions of social security checks. Direct deposits are simple.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Everyone saves a bundle on taxes because of the additional taxes we'll collect on tourists and preteens.

Are you seriously saying that the whole country will save a bundle because tourists will make it all up?
Teens and Pre-teens get their money from their parents who do pay taxes now, unless you count babysitting and yard mowing money, yeah, that will close the gap. How much extra taxes do we have to collect from babysitters to make up for the huge tax cuts this delivers to the ultra rich?

When you finally come up with a real answer to who pays more so that the wealthy can pay less, I think you'll see why the Fair Tax has as much chance of becoming law as Ron Paul has of becoming president.
Ron Paul has only two things keeping him from the White House, A) no Democrats will vote for him, B) No Republicans will vote for him.
Other than that, Paul and the Fair tax are good to go.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

How many times do you need to read something before you actually understand it? I've told you at least twice: 1) No one is saying "the whole country will save a bundle", except you. 2) You're finally up to two of the extra revenue streams I have repeatedly mentioned, now try to get the third: those involved in illegal activities (no income tax claimed, ergo no revenue collected) will be paying taxes under the FairTax. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
I realize you may have been coddled all your life, but producers in this country typically have jobs at a young age. And not just mowing lawns and babysitting. You know that minimum wage liberals keep wanting to push up and up? Well, guess what? Most of the people who earn that wage are teens. They don't pay income taxes because they never earn enough to actually cross the poverty line. But they spend pretty much every penny they earn.

Why do you believe the "ultra rich" will experience a huge tax cut? Do you have any evidence of this? Are you so naive that you believe the "ultra rich" actually pay the tax rate you believe they pay? Do you think the accounting and tax law professions have grown so big and powerful because they do such a good job of making sure their clients pay the tax rate the government says they should pay?
I've come up with nothing but answers for you. And when you realize you're just spouting ridiculous bullshit, you cut out the part of my reply that proves it to you. You're down now to a quite simple concept you can't seem to grasp unless it's repeated to you ad infinitum. Meanwhile, you continue to avoid my questions. Do I have your opposition to the FairTax correct? Is it:
1) You don't like it when people confuse you with big words and hard math,
2) It doesn't screw those evil rich "enough",
3) You don't like conservation and recycling.

Also, what is the maximum amount any person should pay to support the government? 50%, 75%, 100%?

I think that most people are against anarchy for two reasons. 1: They don't understand it. 2: They simply want the status quo. If we had anarchy, they would favor this instead of a coercive government.
When I say coercive, I mean any government that does not allow people to leave its authority. I suppose, after having just thought about it, the when written, the Constitution was something close to this. First, it didn't really give the US government much power to interact with the indivdual citizens. Second, it was seen (at the time) as a voulantary agreement from which the states could leave at any time. So, in some sense, the Constitution set up something sort of like a voulantary government. The Articles, however, did a much better job at this. Still, when the states did try to seperate from the union, the "evil" dictator started a war.
Putting all sorts of restrictions on what you can and cannot do isn't freedom. In order to "choose" not to pay the tax, you must alter your lifestyle in a drastic way.
What I meant to say was that I disagree that there must be a coercive government like we have now. These voulantary governments are wonderful and neccesary. Socialism is good, when it is voulantary.

Well then, I think that I am rebelling now. If it doesn't need to be an armed rebellion, I think I am rebelling unarmed.
Well, I understand what you are saying. However, it is not neccesary to activly defend oneself. Someone might not want a robber to rob him, but he recognizes that if he does not give him his stuff, he will be shot. So, he is faced with two choices: lose some money or get killed. Because he choses to lose some money does not mean that he has agreed to the robbery.
But we never agreed to anything. We were born under the rule of a coercive government.
Yes, and many years have taught us that any tax trade off with politicans is a bad idea.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I'm pretty clear on anarchy, and I still don't think I would like it. I like the rule of law. Not everyone agrees with me. Even those who aren't necessarily criminal don't agree with me that natural law is the only moral law. I would like to live in a country where everyone agrees to live under natual law, and there is a government responsible for protecting everyones' rights under that law. I'm not going to get that in an anarchy.
I could actually go along with this. But what's the common denominator? What's the smallest unit allowed to leave the authority of the government? Does it go as small as the individual? If so, then I think you're just inviting trouble. There are some benefits to having larger entities than the individual. I can only imagine the economic dampening effects of 300 million different countries trying to interact with each other.
I would have all sorts of restrictions on what I could and couldn't do even in the most libertarian of societies; restrictions based upon the rights of my fellow men. Am I less free because I must choose not to drive my neighbor's car whenever I want to? Am I less free because I must choose not to tell the government to take his money to pay for my healthcare?

I disagree the FairTax would cause me to alter my lifestyle in a drastic way. I've already chosen not to spend every penny I make. I choose to conserve it. I choose to buy used when it's just as good as new. The only way my lifestyle would change is I wouldn't have to keep every damn receipt for every damn thing I buy. If being considered guilty before proved innocent (you didn't really have those deductions unless you've got some proof) isn't considered less free than not having to prove anything to anyone, then I don't know what is.
I can agree with this, but that brings us back to the lowest reducible unit of agreement. Suppose I'm one of your neighbors, and everyone except you agrees to pool resources to purchase a private police force. You choose to not volunteer to be a part of our government. You live right in the middle of the neighborhood and are incidentally protected by our fences and patrolling cop cars, but you don't pay for that protection. Why should I pay for your protection? Indeed, why should anyone? Eventually the agreement breaks down and no one is willing to pay for something they could get for free. Either that, or we all purchase separate police forces and the streets are crowded with private armies just looking for someone to arrest. I'm sure you can see the inefficiencies and dangers in this, but what are the alternatives?
In what way? Have you set up the government of Liberty1776? Have you seceded from your state, town, and county? Have you set up your own infrastructure to get you to and from work, provide for utilities, and protect your property?
Well, I could make the same argument you made above then: that's not much of a choice. Aren't I less free when my choices are only get shot or give up my property?
Don't some concessions need to be made? Are you arguing that every newborn be presented with the choice to ratify the Constitution or pack up and leave? And don't forget to pay the toll on your way out?
Then that brings us back to what is the solution?

In the glorious world with out a state, people would be free to interact with another, and natural law would reign supreme. Indivduals would interact with one another for their mutual benefit. There is no reason to assume that trade will get difficult when there are 300 million "countries." The only reason trade between countries is difficult now is because the governments of the countries interfere with the indivduals. Do you really think that the 300 million idividuals would place trade restrictions on themselves, or do you think they would trade freely? With no state, all trade is free trade.

Your argument seems slightly utilitarian. It seems that you have some inkling that, on a moral level, the anarchist position is correct. I think you recognize that any time one person claims to rule over another, with out the consent of the first, something unjust has occured. However, you think that a world with out this unjustness would be a bad place to live.
But while your neighbor owns his car, the government does not own your money. Can't you see the difference?
First, it is not the FairTax that will change the way you live. Under the FairTax, in order to avoid paying taxes, you must drasticly alter the way you live. Second, what about businesses? Will there be audits of businesses to ensure that they have paid the correct amount of FairTax?
I see what you are saying, but there are solutions to this problem, commonly called the "free-rider problem." First, while I would benefit from the fact that the community is safer, the police would not protect my house in the case that it is robbed. So, perhaps the police could post some sort of list of people who do not have their protection. Bad guys then, would be more likely to go to my house. Second, there is the power of social pressure. Social pressure is something that has died at that hands of "social justice" and "tolerance." No longer are people ashamed to live off of others. This is where the silly idea of "welfare rights" comes in. For the most part, I think that this lack of social pressure is a direct result of a coercive government that forces businesses and schools to "be tolerant." So, I think that under you scenario, there would be great pressure on me to sign up. Sure, I might simply not care, but I would most likely be some sort of social outcast. Third, and similar to the second, is the idea of a, for lack of a better term, "credit report." Suppose that I do not pay for police protection. Well, in addition to being the object of scorn in my commumity, perhaps I would be listed in some sort of "free-loader" database. Then, when I try to move, the sellers of the home will see that I am a free-loader and they will not sell me the house. Fourth, we are considering only homes that are already built. Perhaps, when new neighborhoods are built, the builder of the neighborhood would make it a part of the contract to pay for police protection. We already have this in the form of homeowner's associations.

Now, be sure, none of these databases require a government to keep them. So, social and financial arm-twisting will induce people to "fall in line."
Well, let's save this for another time. The answers here are couched in deep libertarian philosophy.


Lowe the current tax, don't add a new one.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Yes, bussinesses will still have to be able to prove they paid the right amount of tax. This is much more simple however. All they have to do is know how much money they made in taxable sales, and what 23% of that is. Under the Fair Tax, the biz is paid to collect the fair tax, and states are paid to make sure the biz paid the correct amount of tax, something they already do.

Lowering the current tax does not solve the problem, however, as the inefficiencies and unfairness remain. Every individual pays a different rate, has different exemptions, files differently. Criminals still pay no tax, even at lowered rates.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

What's the logic behind the prebate?

To me, it just seems like a consolation for having to pay noticably higher prices.

Is it just to create a spending stimulus? Is there more to it than that?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Not everyone. There will always be some who either don't recognize, or don't wish to follow, natural law. What do we do about them? How do we deal with those that break the law?
I do not think they would all trade freely. History has borne this out - advantages will be taken with the natural rights of other men. Without some form of protection for all society breaks down.
I think a world without this unjustness is impossible. People are people, not all of them are going to agree to follow natural law - or any law, for that matter. I can subscribe to the theory you espouse, but can't ascribe it to reality. Since I know it can never come to pass, I choose to compromise.
I can't. We're talking about choices. My choices are always limited by the rights of my fellow man. While in a strict sense that may mean I'm less free, certainly you're willing to compromise that these are necessary restrictions on my freedom?
Jviehe answered your second question. I'll repeat my answer to your first: I won't have to drastically alter the way I live in order to avoid paying taxes under the FairTax. I have to drastically alter the way I live in order to avoid paying taxes under our current system of taxation. How many times have you heard of people buying houses because the want the tax deduction? How many times have you heard of businesses delaying purchases of assets necessary for continued growth because the "tax environment just isn't right"? We bend over backwards for the current system. Under the FairTax, I would just have to keep living as I live without having to worry about justifying it to my accountant every quarter.
You still experience some benefit from being a free-rider.
And when everyone realizes they can benefit from from free-ridership, and they all hire separate police forces? How do we coordinate all the separate lists? What's to stop me from having my cops put you on the list?
I can agree with this.
Who maintains this database? Who ensures it's accurate?
Another form of government. What if I want to get out of this contract? How is this kind contract different from the Constitution?

Now, I didn't parse your writing so that we can discuss each one. We could probably debate each ad infinitum. I did it merely to show that there are problems associated with each. There's simply no perfect solution. Like your signature's author said (if I may paraphrase), "If men were perfect, we'd need no government."
Fair enough. I hope you are successful with your rebellion.
We're just going in circles. Until the government stops spending money, lowering taxes isn't going to work. Until the people get sick of the government spending money, the government is not going to stop. Until the people realize that every penny the government spends is their money, they won't get sick of government spending. Until we have a simplified way of collecting taxes, a way that applies to everyone, the people won't realize every penny the government spends is their money. At the very least, let's simplify the tax code to the point where everyone is treated equally. The FairTax is the only plan I've seen to do that.

Primarily to keep the poor from paying taxes. No legislation will pass that taxes the poor. But, to make it fair, this prebate goes to the middle class and rich also, which means no one pays taxes on neccesities. And this is less complex than creating all sorts of exemptions.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Copy and past the part of HR25 that states that someone who earns 210,000 a year is exempt form the consumption tax? How would that person prove his income at the cash register?

Stating something as asinine as that eradicated any promise of credibility of your position or your sources by demonstrating a critical lack of knowledge about what you're arguing against.

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

Self-composed.com

It sounds like he said they would be pay more, which implies the rich would pay less. Thats probably true, but only because the poor pay none, and the rich pay almost all tax. They cant go anywhere but down. In the end theyll still pay the majority of sales tax as they buy more stuff and more expensive stuff.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.